Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Interests
    music, movies, sports, current "affairs" (they certainly are), storytelling, movie reviewing, watching science fiction and fantasy movies, watching old movies and keeping up to date with recent movies, South Park humor

Previous Fields

  • About my avatar
    The Pope's messenger, 1750 style. The Mission is perhaps the most coherent artistic expression of a Christian perspective I know.
  • Favorite movies
    Amadeus, The Killing Fields, Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Face/Off
  • Favorite music
    Christopher Cross ala 1980
  • Favorite creative writing
    mine of course
  • Favorite visual art
    mine of course

pete's Achievements


Member (5/5)

  1. I think it is great the Academy is presenting the best picture nominees between five and ten. Ten seems too much anyhow. Movies get nominated that don't deserve to be there in movie years that offer little choice. Inception should not have been nominated for best picture, for example. But in keeping with pretense ... Inception makes the grade. Best Picture is just that and it requires the best quality films so five nominations is more than enough. I think people will be looking very hard to come up with possible suitors for best picture which are more than five.
  2. If his directing is anything to go by ... Leonard Maltin's 2011 movie guide does not even include him in his director's index. Oh well. If he helmed reasonably entertaining, popular entertainment throughout the years then the choice will fit in with what an Oscar ceremony is supposed to be about.
  3. Use of metaphors if you will... Superman http://imdb.com/title/tt0078346/ God (read: Jor-El) sends His only son into the world to save it. (1978) Being There http://imdb.com/title/tt0078841/ The Christ (Christ figure, Chance Gardner, played by Peter Sellers) is not of this world, doesn't speak this world's language, and pierces the world's perceptions while He is investigated and doubted by the Pharisees (read: the politicians and the media). (1979)
  4. Best Picture: The Return of the King Best Animated Feature: Finding Nemo Best Director: Peter Jackson Best Actor: Bill Murray, Lost in Translation Best Actress: Charlize Theron, Monster Best Supporting Actor: Tim Robbins, Mystic River Best Supporting Actress: Renee Zelweger, Cold Mountain Original Screenplay: Lost in Translation Adapted Screenplay: Return of the King Art Direction: The Last Samurai Cinematogrpahy: Cold Mountain Costumes: Return of the King Editing: Master and Commander Make up: Return of the King Score: Return of the King Song: Into the West, Return of the King Sound: Master and Commander Sound effects editing: Master and Commander Visual effects: Return of the King Foreign: The Barbarian Invasions
  5. Peter said: But now I see where you're going with all this -- your use of phrases like "rather than" would seem to indicate that you think film-making is a zero-sum game between 'psychological action' and 'physical action', and to have more of one is to have less of the other. Well, I disagree. my reply: I thought about what you said above and maybe I just do think that although I hadn't really conciously thought about it that way. I will have to evaluate that eventhough Joel Silver-produced films don't tend on the whole to be balanced between indepth 'psychological action' and 'physical action'. Thanks for the observation - when I see what I could be implying through my language it is proabably too much of a generalisation. The Two Towers, at least, was strong on ambiguity. My points were made probabaly out of a diet of seeing many multiplex films this year and so I started to pick up on things in those films and formed some opinions and discovered things like: mainstream films tend to start the film with an opening sequence of action (begin with a bang), and producers give screenwriters formulas to work with beacuse they get bums on seats. As I can get free tickets to these showings I tend to go there instead of treking 14 kms into the main city to see art house (and it is good to go for a balance, but never get around to it). Peter said: do you really think there was NO introspection in Finding Nemo!? I found the film touching particuarly towards the end and there was a strong thematic element of the pearl of great price that Jesus talked about in the gospel - where the father sees a large amount of worth in even one of his people.
  6. I remember Philip Yancey saying in What's so Amazing About Grace that Forrest Gump was graceful because the central character still was kind to his girlfriend in spite of her unfaithfulness and gracious towards Gary Sinese's character even when he rebukes Gump for saving him during the Vietnam war. This would indicate grace, at least to me. Pulp Fiction and Forrest Gump seem to portray different aspects of grace. One describes redemption by mercy (Pulp), the other consistant application of forgiveness (even if it looked naive) in a world ravaged by "un-grace" as Yancey uses the term. One is supernatural (Pulp), the other incarnational (Gump). If Forrest Gump was a cynical film then according to Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide he thought the film lost much of the book's satrical edge. He went on to say that you either go with this film or don't swallow it, the implication being that the film was presented as overtly sentimental and not true to the orginal source and so ineffectual.
  7. Anders said: I think in the case of Batman, we're not dealing with a semi-popular comic book character like Hulk or Daredevil. Batman is an icon, voted one of the best fictional characters of 20th century, and recognizable by people who have never picked up a comic or even watched Saturday morning cartoons. I'm pretty sure that this Bat-film will be guarenteed to make money. Because of the icon status of Batman people will see the movie over and over, much like The Phantom Menace or The Matrix Reloaded, regardless of how well it received critically. I would say a $200 million box office pretty much ensured, assuming Nolan can do better than Schumacher in the slightest. Peter Veugelaers replies: your point about Batman able to survive on its own merits is granted, but my point was that based on the films the public have flocked to this year (Nemo, Piartes, Matrix) it would seem introspective heroic films that Nolan could pull off might not do really big business at the box office like the first Batman (1989), which had drawcard Jack Nicholson and not too much psychological intrigue. That's if Nolan made something with overt psycholgical action rather than physical action, like Hulk, which fell substantially at the box office after the first week. People may have expected something else.
  8. Peter T Chatterway said: (2) Are you really saying that fans of the Matrix films do NOT consider the films' themes? No. Fans would. It is not marketed as such to the general public. Peter T Chatterway said: (3) So you are saying that whether or not a film "reeks of thoughtfulness" ultimately depends not on the films but on the people who see them? Well, one's man meat is another man's posion. Even the critics disagree. A film cannot really speak for itself, it needs to be interpreted and that is often subjective although open to similiar readings because we are dealing with the same base subject matter. What is thoughtful to one person can be dull to another.
  9. Peter Veugelaers: This year's big films - Matrix, Nemo, and Pirates - don't wreek of thoughtfulness . . . Peter Chatterway replies: You don't think Finding Nemo does? Heck, even The Matrix Reloaded arguably reeks of thoughtfulness, albeit sophomoric and overly philosophical thoughtfulness, as opposed to the sort of thoughtfulness that asks, "Now what would make this a better film?" Peter Veugelaers: I guess when people go to see movies they don't ultimately consider the film's themes. They're more interested in how entertaining it looks and if that sparks curiosity into the deeper elements of the film so be it. What are the defining elements that intrigue people about Finding Nemo, Pirates, and Matrix? What made Titanic a big hit? Marketing the look of the film plays a part and all these films weren't sold on philosophy although that is part and parcel of the film's package which is something an audience discovers while watching the film, presumably not before it. Nemo is sold on a computer animated look with a well-worn and successful formula; Pirates is sold on the lead actors, the action, and a traditional yarn about good verses evil; Matrix Reloaded was sold on the previous film of 1999 and action - the trailer speaks for itself and the film's producer Joel Silver is a veteran of marketing the generic action film. Really, do producers care whether a film is thoughful or not? It's about whether the project is going to get bums on seats and formulas do that in commercial cinema. The above films are entertainment and sold to an audience interested in that very pleasure. Aren't we all? That's what Hollywood is about. Illusionary fantasy to make money. The new Batman will inveitably go down the same track of selling a certain look and style and Nolan will probably utilise more of his accomplished technique (as evdienced in the backward story-telling narrative of Memento) than his elementary thematic pallette. I believe the art house exists for something more than making a buck, and that again is marketed to a specific demographic.
  10. Jeffrey said: With Nolan (Memento, Insomnia) at the helm, does this story have anything more to give audiences? I'd venture to guess that in Nolan's hands, we might finally have a Batman film of serious substance. He's all about conscience, the guilt of violence, the difficulty humans face in trying to deal out justice that resolves anything... If Nolan goes Hulk-esque like his fellow director Ang Lee what's the bet the box office drops by 70% after the first week. If Hollywood has learned from that maybe the producers of the next Batman might want Nolan to tame down his sensibilities in order for something more user-friendly for the public. The 1989 Batman reached the masses and was not notable for its substance. Nolan has mainly reached the indie crowd and this commerical departure may isolate his fan base. Having said that, maybe it is a time for more introspective heroes like in the Daredevil mould, a sign of the times, and producers have probably brought Nolan on board for this very - albeit commerical - reason. Yet Daredevil made $100 mill. - surely Batman is expected to make more and so marketing and making the film to fit in with the popular conciousness is the formula they will go with. This year's big films - Matrix, Nemo, and Pirates - don't wreek of thoughtfulness, and so to make Batman a popular film may lose much of the "nolan-esque" for want of a better expression. When you get up with the big boys in the business then out goes auteurism to some extent, unless that very signature style has proved profitable.
  11. Johnny English came out in my part of the world in April, so I'm a little rusty on the details. It's not really memorable for what your alluding to, Peter - nudity etc. It's extremely tame when compared to Austin Powers, if that's any help. There's some flashing of buttocks towards the end. I find the U.S. rating a little conservative for what is actually in the film. I can't recall a lot of foul language, perhaps some sexual suggestions, one or two flashes of buttocks. It seems American censors think that this deserves a big write-up in the warnings. Compared to New Zealand censors notes, I find the Americans overplay potential offensive material whereas New Zealand underplays. This should be a okay for someone who has seen South Park The Movie, and the t.v series - I wouldn't be concerned.
  • Create New...